Every Saturday LPAC’s Manhattan Project hosts a live Q&A Town Hall meeting between Lyndon LaRouche and activists in New York.
DENNIS SPEED: On behalf of the LaRouche Political Action Committee I’d like to welcome everybody here today. My name is Dennis Speed, and we’re here on April 23rd, for our dialogue with Lyndon LaRouche.
Some of you may have heard the, I don’t know what you ‘d call it, but the announcement that Barack Obama is in Great Britain. They were saying, actually, on the news that he was there on the death of William Shakespeare. I don’t know if he came as Richard the Turd, or what he did, but, in any case, we’re not going to be observing the death of Shakespeare. We intend to try and do what Shakespeare did, which is to cause a lot of problems for the enemies of mankind, especially as expressed by the British Empire, itself.
Anyway, I’d like to, first of all, ask, Lyn, if you have anything to say, on this occasion, to open this up? And then, otherwise, we’ll go right to questions.
LAROUCHE: I think we should probably get, pretty quick, toward questions, because I want to know what you’re going to ask me to do.
SPEED: All right. OK, let’s go.
Q: Good afternoon, Mr. LaRouche, this is Jessica, from Brooklyn. A lot has happened this week. If anyone in here was on the call Thursday night, we know there’s some exciting things going on. Our President is over there, cavorting around with the Queen; and we have the families of the 9/11 victims being very upset over Obama going to Saudi Arabia.
And, I don’t know, it just seems everything is coming out in these papers, that I never buy. And so, I’m buying a paper, again (it’s crazy), because, this headline says that “Royal Scum” — “Royal Scum,” — I love that. I mean, is that inviting? “Royal Scum — 9/11 Families Outraged Over Saudi Arabia’s $750 Billion Blackmail.” So, everyone saw this threat that Saudi Arabia gave to our government, to pull $750 billion from our economy, as a blackmail threat, and, even the Daily News has it on the cover.
Now, that reminds me of a time when Obama, himself, actually signed on to a situation where families of victims of a bombing that took place in Beirut, Lebanon, that killed 280 soldiers, at that time, U.S. Marines. And the families of those soldiers sued, because Hezbollah was responsible for the bombing, and Iran supported Hezbollah, funded them, and everything else. So, these families sued Iran, which is a government, just like Saudi Arabia is a government. However, at that time, President Obama signed on, in support of the families. Now, he’s saying that you can’t sue a government; that’s just not something that we can do. But, when it was Iran, it was fine, for those families to try to be compensated for their loss. Now, we know exactly why this is true, that he’s not supporting the families in the case of Saudi Arabia. So, if you could comment on that? Of course, it deals with our President, but, if you could comment on the fact that our President is running around, supporting these traitorous operations.
LAROUCHE: No, the situation there is obvious. Obama is guilty, he’s guilty of many things. He was born, sort of, in Saudi Arabia, and formed in that area, and summoned to existence by the British Queen and her associates. So, he is of that nature. And, I can add, very significantly, to that, is that, to everything that Obama and his crew have done, they have committed crimes; and are now still committing crimes, which are great crimes against, not only some nations of the world, but practically all the nations of the world, led by the Queen.
Q: So, here I am, J— from Manhattan. This has been a very exciting week, and Jessica stole my question. [laughter] So, there’s enough questions to come up with, here. But I wonder, since you’re so great at forecasting, what you think could come as propaganda, out of this meeting that Obama has done in Saudi Arabia and in England, commiserating with the Bushes? What do you think could come out of that, with the knowledge that they’re being exposed?
LAROUCHE: Well, the obvious thing is that, the intention is on that party, is to actually cause mass death throughout the whole planet. That’s the intention. And the argument, by Obama, was made in a qualified way, to indicate that is what his intention was. And, you can get a hint of it, by looking at his stepfather. His stepfather was a mad killer. And Obama is a mad killer. He kills people. He’s killed many people in the United States, as U.S. citizens.
Q: [follow-up] Well, how can we make a focus, on the declassification of the 28 pages, if a distraction of massive death? How can we make a connection with that?
LAROUCHE: I don’t have any problem, in dealing with that needed correction.
Q: [follow-up] No, I mean, to do a campaign on it.
LAROUCHE: We just have to go in there and realize that we are throwing the President of the United States into prison! What we’re doing by our action, is implicitly stating, that the current President of the United States, is to be put into prison.
Q: I’m OK with that. Thank you very much for that answer.
Q: Hi, Lyn. H— from Montreal. I wanted to ask this last week, but I had a bit of trouble composing the question. So, I hope it comes out right.
But, what I want to ask is something to do with the nature of the Universe, and how that relates to what we’re doing. We know that the Solar System is tuned, kind of like a musical system, to middle-C=256, and this is also the proper tuning of the human singing voice. So, that obviously says something between the relation of the mind, and the Universe as a whole. It doesn’t work, like Newton proposed, which was just a bunch of forces acting and repelling each other, there’s something different about it.
And, my question is, we, just over this, say six weeks, two months period organized both a concert and a conference. And, there was a definite increase in our organizing capabilities during that time. And, immediately after this, literally two days, you have a dramatic escalation, for the fight to release the 28 pages. And, this was really an unprecedented way, it’s just increased and increased over the last two weeks. So, my question is, how much did our organizing these two events, how much did that actually cause, or create this escalation, at this particular moment?
LAROUCHE: OK. What you can say, is: We had a conference, in the period of this context. And, we raised a number of questions, which were quite in conflict, and we presented it, we presented a case, which is the case — not taking into account, immediately, Obama — but we took into consideration, everything that we went through, during the course of that session. And, it worked, as far as we can see, it worked.
Q: Hi, Mr. LaRouche, this is R—, from Bergen County, New Jersey. I want to ask you a question about this issue, of sovereign immunity. It seems that, with the 28 pages becoming a major issue in the press and so forth, and about a lot of discussion about issues related to that, there are other elements who are starting to crawl out from under the rocks. In particular, there was an op-ed, yesterday, in the New York Times, by two law professors. The title of the op-ed is, “Don’t Let Americans Sue Saudi Arabia.” [LaRouche laughs loudly] The gist of their argument is that, ‘Gee whiz, I mean, if we allow people to sue Saudi Arabia, then, by the symmetric argument, that would modify international law, and it would make it OK for people who are victims of U.S. terrorism, for them to sue the United States.” And they basically come out and say, no nation benefits more from the arrangement of sovereign immunity in international law, than the United States. “It conducts far more diplomatic and economic and military activities abroad, than any other nation. Were the sovereign immunity rule to weaken, the United States would be subject to many more lawsuits in foreign courts, than any other nation.” I found this pretty astonishing.
LAROUCHE: It’s also totally incompetent.
Q: [follow-up] So, they’re talking about the immunity from prosecution. And, I also noticed a news item, today, in Wall Street Journal, that, as a result of U.S. bombings in going after ISIS, admittedly 41 civilians were killed. And, what immunization, it raises in my mind, the question of immunization, from random death, did these 41 people have?
But anyway, my focus-question to you is: What is your opinion, do you think there’s anything for this “international law” argument of “sovereign immunity”?
LAROUCHE: No, there is none, actually none. We have, a standard: Most nations the major nations, the leading nations, who are obliged to recognize the validity of any wrongdoing, by any government, or agency of a government, they are subject to prosecution, and properly so.
Q: Good afternoon, Mr. LaRouche. It’s P—, from Greenwich, Connecticut.
Q: OK. This is a report on our distribution of the pamphlets. Me and my organization, we put over 400 leaflets out, and about 30 pamphlets. And, we went to all the police departments, all the town halls, libraries, and especially the fire departments. And, “instead of honoring,” I said, “now it’s payback.” And they were all just delighted, that they were able to do something, now. So, I’m continuing to do this, at a high level. And Connecticut’s going to be back on the map, very shortly. OK? And, I’m with you 100%, you have the 9th Regiment Connecticut Militia!
LAROUCHE: Well, that is charming news, to be restated, again, which you’ve stated before, previously.
No, the point is, you think about these things, institutions of government, like city government or state governments, and, these things are really quite important. Because the state systems, and similar kinds of systems, special systems, are more efficient in bringing the issues or problems to face. In other words, the people who are professional firefighters, they are quicker to act on the job because that is their job, and therefore they can put their voice in there, and get other parties of government into action more quickly. And also, forewarning. The most important thing, is the forewarning arm, which can be provided through the agency like a Connecticut state organization. And we want things that can be quickly dealt with, that need to be dealt with, and that is really a very special, important, a major consideration. There are major aspects of different parties of the United States, they can also be effected, efficiently, by the appeal, as shared among the states of the United States.
Q: Hi, it’s L—. So, R— and I participated in a two-day conference on the Puerto Rican debt crisis, and there was a discussion on getting a righteous restructuring bill in Congress. And, besides, there was a general spirit of people who wanted independence from the U.S., and who referred to the U.S. as colonists; or others, who wanted equal rights as an American state. We raised the question of Glass-Steagall and the New Silk Road, which created tension. What is your stake on the Puerto Rican case?
LAROUCHE: Well, my case on Puerto Rico is the same thing as on Mexico. I cooperated with a leading figure in Mexico. He made appeal to the general world on the basis of the real system. And I can say that what is true of Mexico, is true of many nations, in part, at least, in terms of South America. And these things all exist as problems.
And I would say that my friend, who I was close to, when he was the President of Mexico and made an international presentation, before the system as a whole; and he was shut down by the international interference in Mexico. But it went through everybody. It went everything in that kind of way.
And so, therefore, we have now a problem in Argentina, in Brazil, and other locations. So, throughout the entire area, the atrocities against Mexico, right now; the personal destruction of the rights of the individual in Mexico, it’s a fact! And therefore something has to be done about that. Because here we had Mexico, and I was a backer of the founding of the Mexican Presidency at that time. And the people in the United Nations took that away, and put Mexico into a terrible condition up to the present time. And other parts of South America are subjected to a similar kind of thing.
So I’m out to close down those kinds of practices. And, with some deal of insight into why these things are wrong and what has to be done about them. And I just waited to get my paws on these offenders, and clean the mess up, if somebody will help me do it.
Q: Hello, Mr. LaRouche, this is H— from New York. And I’d like to talk about a seminar that I saw this week about drugs, but also related to terrorism. I got to hear a Mr. William Brownfield at an NYU seminar, and he’s a State Department official, Foreign Service officer, on international drug policy. And I questioned him on a few things. He said that he used to collaborate on drug policy with Viktor Ivanov, the Russian drug czar, until this was stopped when the Russians moved into Crimea, really the NATO expansion and the Russian counter-operation. And also I brought up the huge death rate due to opiate pain relief drugs through the pharma-business, probably including the recent death of the rock star known as Prince. But how can we be running a war policy against Russia and China, yet at the same time legalizing drugs and destroying our own people? And secondly, is this another angle on the meaning of the Saudi-British sponsorship of the 9/11 terror attacks?
LAROUCHE: Well, I wouldn’t take the particular differentiation of issues on this one. The fact of the matter is, the British Empire controls most of this robbery, and similar kinds of crimes, throughout the planet. Therefore, they should be punished and shut down accordingly, for reason of the actions which they have taken against mankind. Simple. We don’t have to plead on “because , because, because.” We have people that have legal arguments, and they come in with a big word, “because, because, because.” And the crows are still saying, “Caw! Caw! Caw! Caw!” I think it’s the same kind of thing!
So I think the whole issue is a sick issue, it’s not a significant issue; it doesn’t have real characteristics, real teeth in a moral sense, in place. And I think what we have to do, very easily, if the United States were to obey the law, as Franklin Roosevelt’s law did, then I think we could solve a lot of these problems rather quickly. And I think we ought to do that. And don’t waste your time on this trivial stuff.
Q: [follow-up] Would you have anything to say on 9/11 and the Saudis, and how this relates to their crimes against Americans?
LAROUCHE: I’m ready to cook them! But I don’t think the meat’s any good! [laughter]
SPEED: Everyone should be prepared for the answer they’re going to get!
Q: Hi Lyn, this is Daniel [burke]. And I want to, at the moment, we have reported that in the same speech today, reported in today’s papers or yesterday’s, where Obama spoke of the “special relation” between the United states and Britain, when he was celebrating the Queen’s 90th birthday; in the same speech he talks about how terrible Putin is, and how much he hates Vladimir Putin, I mean, essentially. And in the same process we have, just in the past couple of days, more public announcements of the so-called Plan B that was leaked to the Wall Street Journal a week or so ago, in Syria, which is providing anti-aircraft weaponry to Syrian “moderate rebels,” as they say, which is really a bunch of Saudi-controlled jihadis, which anti-aircraft weaponry could be used to bring down a Russian airplane, and certainly means World War III.
So, I wanted to ask you about this advancement in the war danger. And at the same time I want to tell you, we are going to make a full report on this very shortly, but there was a major event here in New York this week, that represents a process, over about a year, of Russian-Americans organizing to try to pull the U.S. and Russia back together. So, there is kick-back coming from Manhattan, which we are invited to participate in, we have been.
But what is happening with this advancement regarding Russia and the war danger?
LAROUCHE: Well, the war danger is tremendous. We are on the edge of general warfare. Now the British system and its allies, which include, also, Obama, are the guilty party in this thing, and it has to be shut down.
Now, look, for example, let’s take the case of deaths incurred by President Obama, during his term of office. He has killed more people, day by day, than any other agent. He is a killer, he is a mad murderer, and he should have been thrown in prison, not just thrown out of office. As long as we tolerate that operation, in the United States, we are actually condoning horror. We are violating everything of what law should be among nations. So there is no excuse for giving him any tolerance whatsoever.
He was, in the best of our information, on every Tuesday of his service, from a certain point to the present time, he has killed more innocent people, under his legislation, than any other source of murder. He’s a killer! He’s an enemy of civilization; and when I say “enemy of civilization,” I mean it. Because the application is general, it’s global. Obama’s presence, in government, is an action against the principle of life in the United States and beyond. This man belongs in jail, not in the Presidency.
Q: [Dave Christie] Hi, Lyn. So I don’t know if I have a question fully worked out, so I’m going to make a statement and see what you think about it. But it seems to me that the issue of 9/11, the Saudi role in it, the release of the 28 pages, the JASTA bill, the Justice Against State Sponsors of Terrorism, that on the one hand it is a specific issue for the U.S., and U.S. law, and justice for the victims of 9/1; on the other hand it is part of the question of international law. The Al-Yamamah deal, as you have taken up, no one else has had the guts to take up this Al-Yamamah deal, the weapons-for-oil deal, that created a massive slush fund that didn’t just fund operations like 9/11, it funded all kinds of terrorist operations all over the planet. So, in other words, there is more to it than just a U.S. justice issue.
Now, what I was thinking about is that the Nuremberg Tribunals were important not just for the issue of justice for what had occurred, but it was also important for a sense of what the world was going to be for the world coming out of the war, the post-war world, that people like Franklin Roosevelt had a very specific idea, and it was going to be much more in line with this idea of sovereign nations that could collaborate. This was the intention of the United Nations, the intention of the World Bank and the IMF was supposed to be about development, but it was supposed to be a new concept, right? So it seemed to be important that the Nuremberg Tribunals were important to establish what was going to be a new sense of the world coming out.
So now, here we are, on the edge of another direction for nations amongst the world, organized around the BRICS process, or the new paradigm more generally, it would seem to me that, 9/11 and the issues around that, and the international implications, would be important to actually have a discussion amongst nations that what this represents must be brought to justice, not just for what occurred on 9/11, but to justice so that we can move forward with this new conception, of relations between nations going forward from here. So that’s my thinking and I wanted to see what you had to say?
LAROUCHE: The claims against the victims in the trials of the Nazi system, this was a necessary action. Whether the execution, as such, was necessary is a debatable action. But the expediency made it clear, that anybody who was allowed to run around with that kind of behavior, in Germany; or in France, in particular—remember de Gaulle actually freed the French people from the British system.
And that still exists there. You know, I still recognize that what the incumbency of the French government presently, is operating under a principle which is against the principles which de Gaulle brought into power. And what they did, is they operated to deprive the French members who were sympathetic to the cause of France, as such, the Gaullist sense of France. And that has been also a crime in Europe.
There are other cases of that, cases where nations have committed crime en masse. And this is one of the cases. And most of the ruling forces in France today, who came into the Socialist Party, so-called, which was really the Nazi party of that time, and that has been a problem. You know, my friend Jacques Cheminade, who is now a contending figure in the policies of France, has set forth an exhibit of exactly what the measures are that have to be pursued, in order to get France back into something which is civilized; something which has not been maintained, since de Gaulle left office.
When they got de Gaulle out of France, everybody took the British interest; the British Empire ran the real government of France as a racket. Now they weren’t all racketeers. But the underlying characteristic of the approach to law, was something which was very close to the Nazi-like kinds of things, which the British had done. Remember the whole thing had been done by the British. So the British Empire took what had been the Gaullist movement, shut that down, and brought in a new thing, called a Socialist Party, and the Socialist Party brought in something which is very much like what we call “Hitler Lite.”
Q: (Diane Sare) Hi. Friday’s New York Times had the article about the 30-year record number of suicides, and they also had an article on the Museum of Modern Art vs. the Metropolitan Museum of Art, that the Museum of Modern Art is flush with money, and the Metropolitan Museum is having extreme financial difficulties, laying off staff, not able to build a new wing, etc. And I started thinking about this. And thinking about could it really be that Americans prefer to go look at so-called art, which consists of someone letting their dog run through a mud-puddle onto a canvass, and then you put it on the wall, or worse; as opposed to the things that people see at the Met, including that very famous Leutze painting of Washington crossing the Delaware which is so large and striking, when you get there. And I thought, this can’t be. People do not find spitting on a canvas to be more inspiring than great art or what is beautiful. And of course, the point is, why is this Museum of Modern Art doing so well? It’s because it’s being funded by Wall Street. And it’s actually not what most people would find beautiful, just as when we’re doing a solfege class here, there are certain universal principles where you recognize things that are ugly, and things that are beautiful.
But it just got me thinking of the incredible role of Wall Street, of London and Wall Street, in dictating to Americans, and I know we’ve written about this, but it hit me in a different way today, that there is a dictatorship over what people even think is their culture! Like what in an article by Don Phau on rock music, where he describes how the Beatles were organized, they literally paid a bunch of high school girls to go out to the airport and start screaming and then filmed it, and said this was the popularity of the Beatles. So I’m just wondering if you have anything to say about this, because clearly this is an absolutely major factor in the incapacity of Americans to act when it’s required.
LAROUCHE: Yeah, I have a lot on that issue, as you probably know; probably more than you know, actually. But the point here is that the fact we make a farce out of art. What we do—the first thing to do is to put the art system under the control of certain kinds of gentlemen, or non-gentlemen, and that is a common practice. It dominates things. And the whole thing is really—well, I just had some discussions earlier this morning on this same kind of area. What we are faced with, is trash! We’re faced with trash, because other people think we ought to accept that trash, whether it’s under one term or another.
It’s is extremely important that we get a clear insight into what are the powers and practices of the human species, within its own bounds, to deal with these issues. And what we can do essentially is, we can recognize these issues, and propose to support them. I had this morning, in our meeting we had this morning, this issue came up. And I presented my view on this issue, that this has to be cut out. This corruption has to be cut out.
We have to understand that there are principles, which we sometimes call principles of art, and they correspond to the functions of art, in the life of mankind in general. And these things are crucial.
SPEED: In this case, I’d like to do a follow up question to that. Because I think you’re going to have something that no one else is even going to think to say, about this. You know yesterday was the 100th birthday of Yehudi Menuhin, and I’ve been reading his autobiography. And he talks about his defense of Furtwängler and what happened—what happened to him and what was done in opposition, and you’ll see immediately why I’m bringing this up.
He says, “in the summer of 1947 when the odium of my having played with Furtwängler was still freshly upon me, I drove to Prades, at the eastern limit of the Pyrenees to see Pablo Casals and to request his aid and comfort for Wilhelm Furtwängler. Casals was in his 71st year and was revered for his refusal to capitulate to Franco by exiles and patriots in every region of Spain. I asked Casals his opinion of Furtwängler. He said he admired Furtwängler, not only as a conductor, but as a German. He has been right to stay in Germany and to do what he could for music and musicians. Reassured, I suggested that I might try to arrange a recording of the Brahms double concerto to be made by Casals, Furtwängler, myself, and so on.”
Then here’s what happened. He says, it got arranged, and then the recording was never made and so he asked Casals why, and he said, “Casals wrote me a note. He said, he personally had nothing against Furtwängler and could envision few greater pleasures than playing with him, were it not for the fact that to do so might compromise his anti-fascist stance and dismay his followers. In other words, Casals was prepared to let me know he didn’t have the courage of his convictions. So long as those convictions were approved by his admirers they were strong, indeed, but in other circumstances, not strong enough to withstand guilt by association with a man he knew had been wrongfully convicted.”
And then here’s what Menuhin said he thought what happened. “I think Casals became in a way, the prisoner of a coterie of my New York colleagues, who more or less ran the first few music festivals at Prades. They made wonderful music with Casals, but they also used his prestige for their own purposes, including punishment campaigns against suspect musicians, who because of my championing of Furtwängler came to focus on Furtwängler and on me.”
Now here’s why I’m asking you about this, Lyn. You were there. You know what this whole idea of the FBI, harassment, the way in which people change their convictions, they know what the truth is , they won’t stand up for it. And you’ve been talking about that for the last several weeks, and even months, actually, to those of us in our organization, and about this moment. But I thought, given what you’ve continually said about Furtwängler, and continually said about his role, that this observation from Menuhin, whether it’s correct or not, I just wanted to bring it to your attention, in the context of what you were saying about art and see if you had anything to say.
LAROUCHE: One thing that’s relevant on this whole fraud issue as considered. First of all, what Furtwängler did in his contributions, especially in what he did, in works that he presented in the post-World War II period, and his work was unique, totally unique. There was no musician, who had a grasp, that he did; and no one did. And this is seen very clearly when you look at what happens with the Schubert and so forth on this same issue. But his achievements, are beyond recognition. Most musicians are not capable of doing it. They try to fit something into it, but they don’t understand it. They don’t understand it, because they think they’re — the same thing that came up with Italy, the same thing in music.
Italy was much more favored, than was Germany, of course, therefore, but the principle’s the same. If you look at Verdi and Verdi’s work, you find out there’s a very characteristic kind of composition, which his use of language requires. Then you have with Furtwängler, another great genius whose mastery of musical composition, is unmatched, on the record! And today, people can still take work from performance models, from Furtwängler, and they will show you something by experience, which you will never get from any alternate sources.
Furtwängler was the last surviving, real genius, in the history of Classical musical composition. The others got damaged, in one way or the other.
Q: Good afternoon, Mr. LaRouche. This is R—, I was talking to you on Thursday night at the Fireside Chat, and I asked you a question about Bertrand Russell and his tactics, his writings from the ’30s and ’40s, which I’d like you to discuss today, is the methods by which we can defeat Bertrand Russell’s tactics to destroy humanity. Because essentially these are the tactics that are being used today with warfare all over the world, etc., the dumbing-down of our education, and all of these other things that Russell has been a proponent of. This is what the Crown is doing today.
What methods besides the obvious which you’ve been discussing, like getting rid of Obama, number 1, and other tactics, what else can we do? Or would you suggest there’s more we can do than we’re doing?
LAROUCHE: Now, on the question, the preceding question that I responded to, and what I’m responding to you, right now, is that, in the case of Classical musical composition, which were the subjects we presented just before, the question of how that is to be judged, it has to be judged, really, by experts. Now, the best way to do that, is a practical one: We are now in Manhattan, with our concentration on Manhattan which is a strong one. And hopefully, we’ll do something similarly in California, California musical areas, and also in the space program, the one that was shut down by Obama. And so, these kinds of compositions, like a great musical composition and so forth, all have a peculiarity, that they cannot be deductively derived. In other words, there is no deductive method, to understand the principles of musical composition, or any similar kind of subject-matter. That’s the point.
And what we do, in order to deal with that, we will take this are, right here, in these premises right here, which I have before me, and these people that are in those locations, have to perfect themselves in order to understand the greatest artistic composition, which we can experience, in performances. We can get music in performances; we have people who we assemble, as other people have assembled, and been trained to do this, to present a musical composition which fits exactly what the intention is! Which fits something akin to what Furtwängler did. Furtwängler’s was much more polished, but the influence of Furtwängler, in this whole thing was very important.
So that the point is, we have to have an understanding, of what we mean by artistic composition, and I have a very special meaning for that, because I think there are certain areas which I will consider composition, and other areas I would not consider serious composition.
But the point is, all good composition, thorough-composition, is very important, for all mankind, and having it right, is also very important. Because when you do it properly, you accede to a realm, which is beyond all customary behavior: We call it music.
So therefore, what we call music, and what we defend as being music, in something we practice, or try to practice with some degree of accuracy, in all Classical musical composition, and related matters.
Q: [follow-up] So, would I be correct in saying, we’re using our creativity, to counter Russell’s lack of creativity in his writings?
LAROUCHE: This guy’s rotten! This guy’s evil! He’s Satanic, he’s intrinsically Satanic. Just take his attack on Einstein. Einstein, the greatest scientific genius who ever walked the face of the Earth. And so, this is not an issue that requires much consideration by me. This is something I know very well, and this is what we need.
Q: Hi Lyn, this is Art [murphy], stepping out of the A/V team for a second. I wanted to bring up a suggestion I had which could lead to some discussion, today being the anniversary of the passing of William Shakespeare, who possibly was born around the same time, because he was baptized on the 26th of April, I understand. Anyway, what I wanted to suggest, was this: Everybody, I’m sure has seen these press photos of these obscene grins by Obama standing next to his Queen, recently. And I thought an appropriate caption for these pictures would be this quotation:
“Here is the smell of the blood, still. All the perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten this little hand.” We can show you the picture here.
LAROUCHE: Aha. Oh, that’s terrible. The smell is terrible! [laughter]
Q: [follow-up] Anyway, it seems that Americans lack the gall to make oppression bitter.
I would ask if you could make some more comments. You’ve said a lot about the importance of Shakespeare today.
LAROUCHE: Well, the whole branch of art, real art, you know, creative art, and science are one and the same thing. Because you know, just take the question of Furtwängler, that what he produced was something which was scientifically precise. There was no possibility of a successful representation, of a composition designed by Furtwängler, which would fit any common, ordinary musician. Even the greatest musicians otherwise, among most of them, would say, “No, no, no, no, I’m not going to go into that,” because they know they’re not capable, of doing what he was capable of doing, and did repeatedly.
So there are resemblances in that sense, in terms of artistic work, which do point toward the divine, we called it the “divine,” the “divine spirit of art”; the “divine spirit of science.” And these things which we can attribute to divine spirits of some kind or other, these I have certain sacredness about them, and therefore we give them special pressure. And the rewards are great! When somebody assimilates these kinds of principles in their practice, that the person who receives the information, is blessed forever.
Q: Hi there, Lyn. I’m just going to follow up more on the Shakespeare question, that he understood the Italian principle. I mean, most of his plays were from Italian plays, most of the literature itself — in England they didn’t get the sculpture and the painting from the Italian Renaissance until way later. They got the literature from Italy. And so, I would just pose a question right now, like that it is a real thing that we have to figure out how to develop this Italian principle. And I was actually at this play a couple weeks ago, where these former military veterans, who now are professional actors, they were doing a rendition of a Sophocles play.
Anyway, there was mostly commentary just on PTSD, and what I raised, is you can’t — these plays themselves are not commentary. These were plays written by geniuses to actually purge the population of tragedy, and not just commentary. And really, what I’m asking, is how do we actually develop that that conception.
LAROUCHE: I went through that, in the course of my earlier incarnation in life, where I spent a lot of time on the question of that. So that is now that is not a problem for me; it never was. The point is that very few people who talk about Shakespeare don’t know much of anything about Shakespeare’s work. Because his work is based on a systemic conception of irony! Of durable irony! Turn the battlefields into something which can be understood. Show how the battlefield, comes into action in relationship with issues of mankind. And this becomes a lesson process, where people are educated by going through the Shakespeare experiences, when they are properly understood. And you get something which is absolutely unique, to the present day.
And Shakespeare is unique. He belongs with Leibniz and people like that. Leibniz was a different kind of case. He was a different kind of case. But they had a great similitude in terms of their mission-orientation.
SPEED: Hmm! Interesting, very interesting.
Q: Hi Lyn, this is M—. I wanted to ask your opinion of something, what do you think of this situation, because I was struck just a few days ago. I went, like I assume, most Upper West Side Manhattanites to my polling place, and walked in; there were not many people there. I was sort of shocked, for a Democratic primary. And I had a very nice time talking to the gal, and it was very relaxed because there weren’t many people there. It was about 5:30, I assumed it would be more crowded.
I went home, and then I hear on the news and I read in the newspaper, that things were going awry in New York in the Democratic primary. And in Brooklyn, of all places, 125,000 people were turned away from the polls! 125,000 people who assumed they were registered, somehow or other, their names just all disappeared. And within 24 hours our Comptroller, Scott Stringer, who is with the Working People’s Party, I do believe, he was furious. And he blamed it on incompetence.
And I said to myself, I wonder about that: because we had some strange elections in the past, some elections for the Presidency, that was brought to my attention in November 2000, between Gore and Bush (and of course, Bush became the President). It had to do something with the debate, that suddenly Bush was falling apart, the MC of the debate turned it around and changed the conversation, and talked about his daughters or something like that.
And I got thinking: Here is Brooklyn, number 1, it is the home of many, many African Americans. Uh-huh? OK. Bed-Stuy, Bushwick and the like. And secondly, it has now become the home of youth, people coming from all over the country, young people, and they seem to be settling in Brooklyn.
Now, my question: What is your opinion of this? Is this some innocent, incompetence on the part, as Scott Stringer said, or is there something more diabolical about the whole thing, that we should worry about having a democracy that’s being really interfered with, even in these primary levels?
LAROUCHE: The point is very simple. This total incompetence; it’s intrinsic incompetence. All of these kinds of things you’re talking about, it’s intrinsic incompetence and fraud, mixed together. That’s what it is.
And therefore, when you come into that, you say, “Well, fraud again!” It’s a kind of alternative term for “fright.”
Q: This is R— from Bergen County, New Jersey. I picked up an editorial by economist Paul Krugman also in the New York Times, called “In Hamilton’s Debt,” where he basically outlines Hamilton’s path breaking policy manifestos, and his first Report on the Public Credit. And he just outlines the general idea of Hamiltonian economics. And he specifically says that Hamilton wanted the Federal government to take on the state debts, to establish a national reputation as a reliable borrower so that funds could be raised cheaply in the future. And also to give wealthy, influential influential investors a stake in a new Federal government, thereby creating a powerful, pro-Federal constituency.
He also seems to approve of the Hamiltonian policy, by saying that bonds issued by the U.S. government would provide a safe, easily traded asset that the private sector could use as a store of value, as collateral for deals, and in general as a lubricant for business activity. And then refers to it as a “national blessing,” which I believe was Hamilton’s phrase.
If governments were to issue more debt and invest in infrastructure, it would provide the private sector with collateral it needs to function, so he’s pointing out the growth aspect of Hamiltonian economics, and it seems that people who opposed this policy, he also points out the negatives of the people who were opposing debt on the basis of the idea that, all conceivable forms of debt from the government are wrong. And so, my question is, is it that the people who oppose any type of debt, who oppose any form of government debt, is it that they aren’t aware of the Hamiltonian formulation? Or they are aware of it, and just simply are enemies of it?
LAROUCHE: I think that most people today, in the United States, especially in the economic characteristics, that he was unique. He created the system, a financial system, which the United States received! He did it! On his own terms. And these terms that he laid out, were laid out in four particular, specific laws: The four laws of Alexander Hamilton, these are the laws to this day, which are the foundation, the valid foundation of all work of him, and of his ideas of that nature. There is no such thing as an interpretation. You have an explicit layout, of four, specific laws, crafted by Alexander Hamilton. And if somebody were to try to strip that away and to get Hamilton out of there as an image, then it would be a good time to have a little riot, and say, this is disgusting! This is stupid! This is disgusting! This is degenerate! And it is! It’s all those terms.
But you just look it up, in any of the books which are published by him, and you can pick out exactly, the exact language, and also the exact argument of what he did. And anybody who thinks they can duck him, they should be sent to another place rather than economics.
Q: Hi, it’s Diane, again. I have a follow-up on this question of culture. And some of what I’m looking at with this whole choral principle in the 1800s. There was a fellow named Theodore Thomas, who was a violinist who came from Germany, who was part of this group of people organizing these big concerts, and also small concerts. He organized the chamber ensemble of a string quartet and pianist, who did hundreds of concerts all over the United States.
But there’s a description about his breakthrough, in a book called Song of the Lark by Willa Cather, where she describes that in New York City in 1851, he heard Jenny Lind and Henriette Sontag. And then, the book says: “Night after night, he went to hear them, striving to reproduce the quality of their tone upon his violin. From that time, his idea about strings was completely changed, and on his violin, he tried always for the singing vibrating tone, instead of the loud and somewhat harsh tone then prevalent among even the best German violinists. In later years, he often advised violinists to study singing and singers to study violin.
“‘But of course,’ he added, ‘the great thing I got from Lind and Sontag was the indefinite, not the definite thing. For an impressionable boy, their inspiration was incalculable. They gave me my first feeling for the Italian style. But I could never say how much they gave me. At that age, such influences are actually creative. I always think of my artistic consciousness as beginning then.'”
That made me think of several things, which is the conscious emphasis you’ve made upon Italian bel canto, that this was conscious, it was a conscious policy direction of musicians in the United States in this period; also what you were saying earlier today about the question of children and the education of children and the impact of hearing a great artist on a young boy, which completely transformed his life and what he did.
Theodore Thomas was the conductor of the chorus of 1,000 at the Centennial Exposition that performed the “Hallelujah” chorus. And I think that is very important, because there are many among us, who I think still don’t exactly appreciate the musical principle is part of the fight for the New Silk Road, it is part of the fight for what we are organizing. When they did the “Hallelujah” chorus at the Centennial Exposition, this was not for “entertainment”; this was part of what the United States was proud of that it was producing.
So I just wanted to bring this to your attention and ask if you had further comments.
LAROUCHE: I could just say that there were a number of people involved in this kind of program of presenting musical compositions, and their performances. And what happened is, a friend of mine, also, had a father who was a leading figure in that formation of that particular session. And he reminded me, many times, about what his father had done. And I think anyone who digs out that recording, which is available among some people — I don’t have a copy myself at hand; I did have it at one point. And it’s a very wonderful thing. This is something which inspired me, many times, because I had to listen to some of this work.
But that’s great. We have a natural, my generation, people of my generation have a natural access, to great musical composition and its work in those cases. So I would suggest that some of my friends who have access to those particular series, should probably contribute a copying of this, so that others could share it.
Q: [follow-up] You’re referring to a certain Ulanowsky?
Q: [follow-up] Good.
SPEED: So, Lyn, I think that’s our questions for today. This week, we’re going to be having all sorts of events here, interventions and all sorts of things. Some of our Irish friends are commemorating the 100th anniversary of the Easter Rising. There are events around the 9/11 business, there are many different things happening. So the Manhattan Project’s going to be very active this week. And in particular, now that we’ve got Saudi Arabia, the British and Obama, all sort of lined up, right there in front of us, I’d just like to ask you if you have any words for us, for how we should conduct ourselves in the next several days?
LAROUCHE: Well, I think we should avoid frightening people. You know that would be unpleasant. But I think anything which is creative, actually creative should be welcome, but it should be of that nature.
SPEED: OK. Not even any broiling. Right? You don’t want to see…
LAROUCHE: No broiling, none of that. What you want, is you want the other people who have something to contribute to the mêlée, and that’s what you want!
SPEED: [laughs] OK, very good! Thank you. We’ll see you next week!